UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 23

Re: MoD File Release

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 02:59:11 +0100
Archived: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:29:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:14:32 -0300
>Subject: Re: MoD File Release

>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:08:49 +0100
>>Subject: Re: MoD File Release


Hello Don, List,

>>The rest of ufology appears to be at a loss

>Yeah, where did you hear that? We've got enough to deal with over
>here without worrying about the MOD's thin reports and pablum

I didn't hear it anywhere - it is evident from the general lack
of reaction in some quarters, the frenzied speculation in other
quarters, and it is only in the quieter backwaters that a few
people are actually taking steps to _do_ something with the data
and make the most out of it.


>See below.

>>There are a lot more files to come, and there will be more
>>interesting reports amongst them, and in a few cases, the MoD
>>will have carried out superficial investigations (the Cosford
>>case is a good example). There is no 'secret squirrel' section,
>>no smoking gun, no positive evidence of ET visitation. Get used
>>to it, and decide what you want to do to make the best use out
>>of 'disclosure' - it's arrived.

>Ah cut the crap, Joe. The conspiracy side is getting a little
>tired. You wouldn't know in any event if there was anything they
>wanted to keep out of the public eye. You state with authority,
>"There is no 'secret squirrel' section, no smoking gun, no
>positive evidence of ET visitation."

I'm not sure what you mean here - by "The conspiracy side is
getting a little tired", do you mean that it is becoming more
untenable? If so, I couldn't agree more.

As for in not being possible for a conspiracy to be uncovered, I
disagree - the Pat Finucaine murder scandal in Northern Ireland,
and the 'dodgy dossier' debacle in relation to the poor
intelligence about Iranian weapons of mass destruction are two
examples that come straight to mind about things which the UK
government would prefer were not public knowledge.

I've looked for signs of a cover up and not found any, though I
have to say that there could be grounds to suspect that some
material has been tampered with.

>Why the hell would they tell you? Do you really think you are in
>the loop? There are plenty of things the government keeps secret
>that have nothing to do with UFOs that you will never be privy
>to. They have become masters at it over many centuries.

See above - they are not as masterful as you would seem to think.

For a cover-up to be successful requires that a) relatively few
people know about what is being covered up and b) those that do
know recognise the need for it.

>The Canadian government UFO files have been avaiable for 15 or
>20 years, even copies of the 16mm copies have been available
>from the National Archives through the library loaner system
>_and_ with a lot more detail than is evidenced in the MOD
>released files, i.e. RCMP reports of their investigations. But
>there are more there that we can't get at for whatever reason
>they are holding them back.

How do you know this? Aren't they subject to the Canadian FoIA,
or don't you have one?

>The Blue Book files have been around for a couple of dozen years
>as well. Not sure about all of the hype about the MOD files
>other than they are remarkable for the MOD lying about not
>having them in the first place and then releasing them bit by
>bit as if they are the be all and end all of UFO reports. They
>for the most part are disturbingly amateurish.

The MoD have never, as far as I am aware denied having files
containing references to UFOs. They have on occasion either lied
or been mistaken about exactly what they hold, for instance, when
the Rendlesham story broke they said that all they had was Halt's
memo - we now know that not to have been true.

I have always maintained that the MoD handling of UFO reports
has been amateurish - I am glad that you agree.

>Was this the last final release of reports - other than the
>continuation of the most recent - or will their be more do you

It's possible an odd case might turn up here or there, which
will be due to people either flouting or not being aware of the
process. We already know of at least one case followed up by
Ops(GE) without the involvement of Sec(AS), but this was done in
ignorance and wasn't an especially spectacular case.

We are also aware of missing files, which contained UFO-related
information. At the moment the MoD position is that these have
been destroyed in error, but we are still pursuing them and they
might ultimately be found.

>As for Nick, if he was commenting more on the most recently
>released files you would babbling on about him trying to steal
>some thunder from you and the others. Which way do you want it,
>Joe... make up your mind.

My mind has always been made up - as soon as Nick starts to give
appropriate credit, I don't care how much he depends on our
efforts. Can you imagine how Brad Steiger would react if someone
else claimed to have written his book Maritime UFO Files?

>Nick worked there. You and the others are just nibbling around
>the edges.

I don't think that having worked in what now seems to be
universally recognised as an ineffective department is much of a
recommendation - Tony Blair used to work as our Prime Minister.
These edges are getting quite large, we had about 10,000 pages
of MoD material _before_ the current release.



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com